At first, I thought Jonty's speech was in fact touching on many of the same points as the proposition when he argued that some laws are "not law" when the law is used to oppress / is very obviously immoral. Throughout the rest of the speech he outlined a nuanced point about the rule of law in the case where there is legitimacy to the government and I think of all the speakers I can perhaps agree with him the most. When reduced to a yes or no question, I'd still have to vote Aye for the proposition, mostly because of the points made by Sir Robert Buckland - that the law does not keep pace with morality and that absolute faith in rule of law can very easily be used by authoritarian governments to have people act against individual morality. Avoiding these cases must be an absolute priority. Jonty's overall perspective is probably the closest to my own.
Rules, including laws, are explicitly for the ignorant. If the law allows something immoral, you still have a responsibility to not do it. If the law doesn't allow something harmless, you still have an absolute right to do it. Duty Ethics is an abdication of morality and responsibility and is therefore immoral.
While the validity of all laws should be subject to proper scrutiny, this does equate to a condoning of rampant law-breaking generally, lest the rule of law in a society be irreperably broken, and that nation lost in both spirit and form.
![Eminem - Like My Shit [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vx_IMvFkrfA/mqdefault.jpg)
What a terrible opening statement 😅 he did not present his case well at all
At first, I thought Jonty's speech was in fact touching on many of the same points as the proposition when he argued that some laws are "not law" when the law is used to oppress / is very obviously immoral. Throughout the rest of the speech he outlined a nuanced point about the rule of law in the case where there is legitimacy to the government and I think of all the speakers I can perhaps agree with him the most.
When reduced to a yes or no question, I'd still have to vote Aye for the proposition, mostly because of the points made by Sir Robert Buckland - that the law does not keep pace with morality and that absolute faith in rule of law can very easily be used by authoritarian governments to have people act against individual morality. Avoiding these cases must be an absolute priority. Jonty's overall perspective is probably the closest to my own.
Rules, including laws, are explicitly for the ignorant. If the law allows something immoral, you still have a responsibility to not do it. If the law doesn't allow something harmless, you still have an absolute right to do it. Duty Ethics is an abdication of morality and responsibility and is therefore immoral.
who decides bad? A missed opportunity to address something specific.
let's be honest there is bad laws and we all break them all the time.
here he is officer, Britain's most wanted criminal
While the validity of all laws should be subject to proper scrutiny, this does equate to a condoning of rampant law-breaking generally, lest the rule of law in a society be irreperably broken, and that nation lost in both spirit and form.
Dennis you’ve gotta help me, I’ve got to do this debate and you seem experienced in this field. Bless me with your wisdom Denis Morris
That was a good debate and it was fun to listen. Thank you Cambridge :)
Glad you enjoyed it!
Given the propositions it's no surprise the Kingdom isn't that United anymore. A very good proposition for DK to be (not Danmark, Disunited Kingdom)